T.C. Memo. 2000-198
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WILLIAM A. HOFFMAN, JR., Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 14273-99L. Filed June 29, 2000.
William A. Hoffman, Jr., pro se.
Karen Nicholson Sommers, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WELLS, Chief Judge: Respondent issued to petitioner a
Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions Under
Section 6320 and/or 6330. In response to that notice, petitioner
timely filed a Petition for Lien or Levy Action Under Code
Section 6320(c) or 6330(d). We review for abuse of discretion
- 2 -
respondent's Notice of Determination Concerning Collection
Actions Under Section 6320 and/or 6330.
On May 23, 1997, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to
petitioner determining a deficiency in, additions to, and
penalties on petitioner's 1994 Federal income tax. Petitioner
received the notice of deficiency and responded to respondent by
a letter dated June 8, 1997. Petitioner failed to petition this
Court within the time required by section 6213 with respect to
the notice of deficiency.
Subsequently, on April 7, 1999, respondent sent petitioner a
Final Notice of Intent to Levy pursuant to section 6330. The
notice stated that petitioner owed taxes, penalties, and interest
totaling $7,729.59 for the 1994 taxable year and that respondent
was preparing to collect that amount by levy. The notice stated
that petitioner could request a "Collection Due Process Hearing"
with respondent's Appeals Office.
On April 21, 1999, respondent received from petitioner a
request for a collection due process hearing. On July 14, 1999,
petitioner met with Appeals Officer Fred McMullen of the Southern
California Appeals Division. At that meeting, petitioner
declined to discuss collection alternatives or any facts
concerning his tax liability and chose instead to present
frivolous arguments. Consequently, Appeals Officer McMullen
- 3 -
determined that the Internal Revenue Service could proceed with
the proposed levy.
The relevant parts of section 6330 provide:
SEC. 6330 Notice and Opportunity for Hearing Before Levy.
(a) Requirement of notice before levy.--
(1) In general.--No levy may be made on any property or
right to property of any person unless the Secretary has
notified such person in writing of their right to a hearing
under this section before such levy is made.
* * * * * * *
(b) Right to a fair hearing.--
(1) In general.–- If the person requests a hearing
under subsection (a)(3)(B), such hearing shall be held by
the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals.
* * * * * * *
(c) Matters considered at hearing.--
* * * * * * *
(2) Issues at hearing.--
(A) In general.--The person may raise at the
hearing any relevant issue relating to the
unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including–-
(i) appropriate spousal
defenses;
(ii) challenges to the
appropriateness of collection
actions; and
(iii) offers of collection
alternatives, which may include
the posting of a bond, the
substitution of other assets, an
installment agreement, or an offer-
in-compromise.
- 4 -
(B) Underlying liability.--The person may also
raise at the hearing challenges to the existence or
amount of the underlying tax liability for any tax
period if the person did not receive any statutory
notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not
otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax
liability.
* * * * * * *
(d) Proceeding after hearing.--
(1) Judicial review of determination.--The person may,
within 30 days of a determination under this section, appeal
such determination–-
(A) to the Tax Court (and the Tax Court
shall have jurisdiction to hear such matter);
* * *.
In a recent opinion, Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176
(2000), the taxpayer received a notice of deficiency and failed
to petition this Court for redetermination with respect thereto.
At the due process hearing pursuant to section 6330(b), the
taxpayer challenged the underlying deficiency on constitutional
grounds. The Commissioner issued a determination letter to the
taxpayer, and the taxpayer timely filed a petition for review
with this Court. The Court granted the Commissioner's motion to
dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim on the grounds
that the taxpayer could not challenge the underlying deficiency.
The Court held that a taxpayer who received a notice of
deficiency and failed to file a petition for redetermination of
that deficiency with this Court was precluded from later
- 5 -
contesting the underlying deficiency in a proceeding in this
Court under section 6330(d).
Petitioner does not dispute that he received a notice of
deficiency and failed to file a timely petition with this Court
pursuant to section 6213 for redetermination of that deficiency.
Petitioner further does not dispute that he failed to raise any
of the issues listed in section 6330(c)(2)(A) at the July 14,
1999, meeting with respondent's Appeals Office. Rather,
petitioner continues to put forth frivolous arguments that have
been universally rejected by this and other courts. Because,
however, petitioner received a notice of deficiency and failed to
file a timely petition with this Court for redetermination of
that deficiency, he is precluded from raising any issue regarding
his underlying tax liability at this time. Consequently, we
sustain respondent's determination in the Notice of Determination
Concerning Collection Actions Under Section 6320 and/or 6330.
Petitioner perhaps did not realize the frivolity of his
petition in the instant case. Accordingly, we warn petitioner
that pursuant to section 6673 we are authorized to impose a
penalty of up to $25,000 on taxpayers who institute proceedings
merely for delay or who set forth in a proceeding a position that
is frivolous or groundless. Petitioner should bear that fact in
mind in connection with any further proceedings which he may
institute in this Court.
- 6 -
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.